Construct Validation of Hebrew Versions of Three Physical Self-Concept Measures: An Extended Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis

Abstract

This study extends support for the construct validity of the three strongest physical self-concept measures for 395 Israeli university students (60% women) aged 18 to 54, demonstrating a new extension of the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) design that incorporates external validity criteria and a test of jingle-jangle fallacies. Structural equation models of this MTMM data confirmed the a priori 23-factor structure of the three instruments, and the convergent and discriminant validity of factors from each instrument in relation to those from the other instruments. There were few age effects, whereas gender differences were smaller than expected and stable over age. In support of the known-group-difference approach, physical education majors had systematically higher physical self-concepts than management majors. Relations of body image to self-concept factors supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the physical self-concept factors and the separation of body fat from physical appearance self-concepts, but having a more obese body was not significantly related to health self-concept or global self-esteem factors.

Assessment of Physical Self-Concept in Adolescents with Intellectual Disability: Content and Factor Validity of the Very Short Form of the Physical Self-Inventory

“…This result confirms the proposed interrelations between the various dimensions (i.e. discriminant validity) of the PSI-VSF-ID and is of similar magnitude to those found by Maïano et al (2008) on the PSI-VSF and by others on the PSPP-RSEI combination (Atzienga et al 2004;Fox and Corbin 1989;Hagger et al 2004Hagger et al , 2005Marsh and Redmayne 1994;Marsh et al 2002Marsh et al , 2006. However, according to Marsh and Redmayne (1994) and Marsh et al (2002Marsh et al ( , 2006, the strength of those relations also brings into question the real independence of physical self dimensions, and by extension their discriminant validity.…”

“…ranging from .418 to .990). These results are highly similar for both versions and consistent to the results from previous studies of the PSI-VSF (Maïano et al 2008) and of the PSPP-RSEI combination (Atzienga et al 2004;Fox and Corbin 1989;Hagger et al 2004;Marsh et al 2006). Additionally, all latent factor correlations provide evidence for the discriminant validity of the PSI-VSF-ID, according to Bagozzi and Kimmel's (1995) criteria.…”

“…However, according to Marsh and Redmayne (1994) and Marsh et al (2002Marsh et al ( , 2006, the strength of those relations also brings into question the real independence of physical self dimensions, and by extension their discriminant validity. Indeed, for these authors (Marsh and Redmayne 1994;Marsh et al 2002Marsh et al , 2006, such a result may be observed with short scales that attempt to cover a broad range of dimensions with few items, as it is the case for the PSI-VSF-ID. However, it may also suggest that ID adolescents' ability to discriminate between those various dimensions of their physical self-concept may be more limited.…”

“…The RSEI rely on a 4-point Likert scale, also providing a possible range of 1-4 for the GSC. This instrument has been cross-culturally adapted and validated in Belgium ( Van de Vliet et al 2002), Israel (Marsh et al 2006), Portugal (Fonseca and Fox 2002), Spain (Atzienga et al 2004), Sweden (Hagger et al 2004), Turkey (Marsh et al 2002) and France (Ninot et al 2000d).…”

Construct validity of multiple achievement goals: A multitrait‐multimethod approach

“…The results, including overall chi-square, degrees of freedom, and model fit indices (i.e., CFI, IFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR), are provided in Table 2. According to the suggestions of Marsh (Marsh, 1996a;Marsh, 1996b;Marsh, Bar-Eli, Zach, & Richards, 2006), convergent validity is witnessed by a large and statistically significant trait-factor loading. Discriminant validity is evidenced by large factor correlations (i.e., those approaching 1.0) which indicate structural overlap.…”